It's Human Nature To Take Drugs
Start writing a post
Politics and Activism

It's Human Nature To Take Drugs

We need to accept that people have and always will use drugs.

It's Human Nature To Take Drugs
Photo by from Pexels

It’s hard to understand why some people believe non-alcoholic drugs don’t have a place in society. The fact of the matter is people have been using drugs for centuries and there is no foreseeable future where this isn’t the case.

It was only till recently, under Nixon, that lots of people began to see illegal drugs as a problem and condemn such drug usage. This was the beginning of America’s immodest attempt to end drug use nationwide.

For those who know about this ‘war on drugs’ are probably aware of its socio-political ramifications that greatly increased the number of minority incarcerations. For those who don’t, I would recommend Netflix’s “13” for a brief insight on how drug laws can be used to target African-American communities.

But let’s pretend for a moment that drug legislation doesn’t target minorities. Even if this were the case, the ‘War on Drugs’ would still be a disaster because it completely ignores the human element involved in taking drugs.

And by human element I mean the reasons why so many of us use drugs, which can, I believe, be broken into two major categories. One, because we have comfortable lives but still enjoy altering our brain every now and then for entertainment. And two, some of us are destitute, whether it be for mental or fiscal reasons, and seek an answer in drugs.

In both cases, the person taking the drugs aims at one thing: to improve their current situation. This is why I can never support incarcerating drug users, who more often than not, just want to enjoy life.

Therefore, if America truly wanted to end drug use it should focus on why people take drugs in the first place and move from there. If people take drugs to seemingly improve their lives, then the solution should be to improve lives, not ruin them by putting people in jail/prison.

This current approach of incarceration is also flawed because there isn’t a finite number of dealers and users out there. As if these people were some exotic animal species that could go extinct and by removing them they would cease to exist.

However, as long as humans are around, drugs will also be present. If you remove a drug dealer someone will take their place, and anyone is susceptible to feel the need of drugs. There just isn’t a way to stop drug use, which is exactly why we shouldn’t try.

What we should be doing is trying to stop drug abuse, which is a medical problem. Because while there are some drugs that are inherently dangerous, most drugs can be used responsibly without causing any harm to anyone besides the user.

Now, other than overall improving lives of people, which would solve a lot of problems, there are other ways to approach the specific issue of drugs. Where changes primarily to occur is drug legislation, drug education, and drug research.

Oregon’s plan to decriminalize small amounts of drugs is an excellent start. It attempts to treat hard drug use as a medical condition and move away from the mindset the ‘war on drugs’ popularized.

Now, this isn’t perfect, but for a state to recognize that drug users are not bad people who deserve severe jail time is a huge step in the right direction. Ideally, time will show that drug overdose and abuse will go down as a result and other states take up similar policies.

Then, of course, there is the atrocity that is drug education. Trying to suppress drug use completely is a huge mistake, especially when taught to teenagers who often tend to rebel.

Also, plenty of the facts about drugs are ignored, for example, what smoking marijuana does that make people enjoy it. If anyone does end up smoking weed and finds out they enjoy it, they could easily assume that what they’ve been told about other drugs is also incorrect and move on to more serious and harmful drugs.

Drug education should give honest facts, not hide the benefits of drugs. It should advocate safe use and should assume that most people in their lives will use drugs. It should also not create a stigma against people addicted to drugs but instead preach how we can help people who become reliant on drugs.

And finally, our research on drugs needs a total revision. Research was stopped after Nixon began the ‘war and drugs’ which is a disgrace in the name of progress. We have the technology and money to do the research, and there are plenty of reasons why we should research.

One is that there are literal benefits to some drugs. It’s shocking that we still don’t know everything there is to know about medical marijuana even though it has been proven to help certain medical conditions, such as epilepsy.

Even drugs such as psychedelics have potential to cure mental diseases. Taking them rids one’s sense of ego and opens pathways in the brain for new thought. If done properly, therapy could be issued with the use of drugs and change someone’s perception of the world, potentially curing things such as depression.

Also, as I have been trying to emphasize, taking drugs is human. If we have a desire to alter our brains through drugs, not researching drugs is denying research on the psychology of humans. So even if some drugs don’t have benefits, it’s still important to find out what exactly these do the brain and why people find comfort in them.

Humans are constantly seeking answers to our problems. Maybe in an ideal world, we wouldn’t need drugs but that isn’t the case. Instead, we’re left in this world fumbling for meaning and happiness. And it’s about time we consider that drugs could help us in this search for meaning and happiness.

Report this Content
This article has not been reviewed by Odyssey HQ and solely reflects the ideas and opinions of the creator.
Student Life

Social Media Or Soul Media

To the generation that cares way too much about affirmation.

Emma Smith
  • This semester I am taking the ever so famous class, Writing 101. Walking into it, I had heard the horror stories about each major assignment. I have to admit, it’s not a class that I am fond of. But, major assignment #2 got me thinking, we had to create a research question based off of a topic that we are interested in.

Two weeks prior, I watched a very interesting documentary on Netflix. Miss Representation was recommended to me by one of my friends and I have to say the topic is absolutely mind blowing. Social Media and Female Body Image. How Social Media makes girls see this unnatural perfection of ‘beauty’ that really doesn’t exist. But female body image isn’t the only thing affected by social media.

Keep Reading... Show less

Sex And The Church

A letter to fellow believers.

Amanda Hayes
  • I know many of you just read that title and thought it was scandalous to see something so “risque” in the same setting as something holy. Well guess what – sex is part of that. Everyone seems to think they are separate, which makes since because most people treat them as though they are complete polar opposites. Shall we think this through?

Who created the Church body? God. Who created the body? Also God. If we know God to be the creator of all things, we cannot leave sex out of that equation. God created sex, people! Praise Him! Like all great things, the world has twisted and perverted it. The world has stained it so badly that even many church congregations see it only as stained and keep quiet about that part of God’s word. Many people know that God told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), but a lot of people overlook the entirety of Song of Solomon. The entire book is dedicated to telling of the love and sex between man and wife. God blessed us with the gift of intimacy, one to be shared between husband and wife. Church if we teach of sex as the blessing that it is, more people will start treating it as such. If we stop viewing sex as this unspeakable act, the temptation would be lessened. With the fall of man, humans naturally desire things they should not have. So if more people speak of it with gladness and praise, and do not hide it in the darkness as if it were vile, fewer people would be drawn to it for the wrong reasons. More people would appreciate it for what it is: a gift from God.

Keep Reading... Show less

Chick-fil-A, I love you.

Keep Reading... Show less

An open letter to my father

What you did sounds dumb to me

An open letter to my father
The Truth About My Parents' Divorce

Considering im 18 now & you're one of the best men i've ever met since you have a child; me. I want you to know that I love you, more than anyone, I love you. I don't forgive you for the way you hurt my mother. I'm hurt because you broke our family. Thing went down hill the day you found Laquita. You we're distant & shortly after my mother turned into the coldest, saddest women to walk past me. She's my best friend & so are you. Not one day goes by where I don't wonder what she did wrong. How on earth could you trade your family & the women who loved you unconditionally for a home wrecker? Sounds dumb to me.

Keep Reading... Show less

Is God Reckless?

Exploring the controversy behind the popular worship song "Reckless Love"

Is God Reckless?

First things first I do not agree with people getting so caught up in the specific theology of a song that they forget who they are singing the song to. I normally don't pay attention to negative things that people say about worship music, but the things that people were saying caught my attention. For example, that the song was not biblical and should not be sung in churches. Worship was created to glorify God, and not to argue over what kind of theology the artist used to write the song. I was not made aware of the controversy surrounding the popular song "Reckless Love" by Cory Asbury until about a week ago, but now that I am aware this is what I have concluded.The controversy surrounding the song is how the term reckless is used to describe God's love. This is the statement that Cory Asbury released after many people questioned his theology regarding his lyrics. I think that by trying to clarify what the song was saying he added to the confusion behind the controversy.This is what he had to say,
"Many have asked me for clarity on the phrase, "reckless love". Many have wondered why I'd use a "negative" word to describe God. I've taken some time to write out my thoughts here. I hope it brings answers to your questions. But more than that, I hope it brings you into an encounter with the wildness of His love.When I use the phrase, "the reckless love of God", I'm not saying that God Himself is reckless. I am, however, saying that the way He loves, is in many regards, quite so. What I mean is this: He is utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His actions with regards to His own safety, comfort, and well-being. His love isn't crafty or slick. It's not cunning or shrewd. In fact, all things considered, it's quite childlike, and might I even suggest, sometimes downright ridiculous. His love bankrupted heaven for you. His love doesn't consider Himself first. His love isn't selfish or self-serving. He doesn't wonder what He'll gain or lose by putting Himself out there. He simply gives Himself away on the off-chance that one of us might look back at Him and offer ourselves in return.His love leaves the ninety-nine to find the one every time."
Some people are arguing that song is biblical because it makes reference to the scripture from Matthew 28:12-14 and Luke 15. Both of these scriptures talk about the parable of the lost sheep and the shepherd. The shepherd symbolizes God and the lost sheep are people that do not have a relationship with God. On the other hand some people are arguing that using the term reckless, referring to God's character is heretical and not biblical. I found two articles that discuss the controversy about the song.The first article is called, "Reckless Love" By Cory Asbury - "Song Meaning, Review, and Worship Leading Tips." The writer of the article, Jake Gosselin argues that people are "Making a mountain out of a molehill" and that the argument is foolish. The second article, "God's Love is not Reckless, Contrary to What You Might Sing" by author Andrew Gabriel argues that using the term reckless is irresponsible and that you cannot separate Gods character traits from God himself. For example, saying that God's love is reckless could also be argued that God himself is reckless. Reckless is typically not a word that someone would use to describe God and his love for us. The term reckless is defined as (of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action. However, Cory Asbury is not talking about a person, he is talking about God's passionate and relentless pursuit of the lost. While I would not have chosen the word reckless, I understand what he was trying to communicate through the song. Down below I have linked two articles that might be helpful if you are interested in reading more about the controversy.

Keep Reading... Show less

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Facebook Comments